If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Websleuths needs YOU to be a part of a groundbreaking docu-series about serial killers and sleuthing

CLICK HERE to read about the cases featured in the series including West Mesa, Daytona, I-4, Central Florida and Long Island Serial Killer

This is precisely, over many posts, what I quoted to you, e.g. verbatim opinion. For the record, do you give precedence to either of Coroner Meyer's manner of communication?

As far as you can see? Well he did and I will elucidate it for you:

1. Red stains observed on size-12's, assumed to be blood.
2. No blood observed on the exterior pubic area, located next to the areas of the size-12's containing the red stains.
=================
Conclusion:
=================
3. JonBenet was wiped down

Coroner Meyer's conclusion reached from separate facts observed at autopsy are to be read in the last sentence in the above verbatim opinion.

Your theory has some merit, but relates to the volume of blood having exited, at some point, from JonBenet. A subject which Coroner Meyer also offers no opinion on!

Whilst the original subject was that JonBenet was already wearing the size-12's prior to being wiped down, and that is my inference, and it is based on something Coroner Meyer opined on, and if queried on oath, I'm certain he would agree?

That is two different subjects are being conflated, e.g.

1. The timeline in which JonBenet was wiped down: prior to being redressed in the size-12's or after?

2. The volume of blood exiting from JonBenet.

.

Once again- Mayer reached NO conclusion about what may have caused the bleeding he simply wrote what he found. Stating that she had been wiped by a cloth, to me, is an observation, not a conclusion. We still have nothing in writing from the coroner about how these injuries (and the resulting bleeding) were caused. But if it makes you feel better, call it a "conclusion". To me, a conclusion is the "end"- a final statement. The final part of this observation is missing- as there is nothing that indicated the cause.

For the record, I prefer Mayer's WRITTEN observations over those spoken to those present at the autopsy. I think most people would agree.

I doubt Mayer would agree, under oath or not, that JB was wearing the size 12 panties before she was wiped down. There would have been more blood on them, and the blood on the panties would be in a different location. This he has already said- that the blood drops do not match the area on her body where she had been wiped down. I simply cannot spin it any other way and simply cannot see how there is anything that indicates she was wearing them before she was wiped down.
Here is my timeline:
1. assault causing bleeding occurs
2. bleeding necessitated wiping
3. panties needed replacing.
4. replacement panties found in basement, wrapped up in a gift box, possibly with other items.
5. size 12 panties put on JB.

THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:

Some years ago, iirc, in one of the depositions, Patsy was asked if JonBenet and Burke ever played "horse" or some similar game. I believe Patsy replied that sometimes she pretended to be a dog and Burke would put a leash of sorts around her and lead her around. Does anyone else remember this?

Some years ago, iirc, in one of the depositions, Patsy was asked if JonBenet and Burke ever played "horse" or some similar game. I believe Patsy replied that sometimes she pretended to be a dog and Burke would put a leash of sorts around her and lead her around. Does anyone else remember this?

I do recall that. I also recall Patsy saying that BR was always "trying to make a boat or something" (her words) with a rope.

This family knew about ropes and knots. They were sailors and BR was a scout and JR was in the Navy.

THIS time, we get it RIGHT!

This post is my constitutionally-protected opinion. Please do not copy or take it anywhere else.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to DeeDee249 For This Useful Post:

Please, please, please. The “handle” that was attached to one of the tailpieces of the ligature that was found on JonBenet’s neck was never twisted to tighten it. It was dysfunctional in that respect, and probably impossible to do because of the hair that was caught up in the knot. Her hair was shorter than the length of cord between the ligature and the “handle”, so neither was it pulled to tighten the ligature. The simple logistics of how this would work makes impossible to be anything other than something that was added on to a lifeless body as nothing more than staging.

I had wondered before (and even asked on this forum) if anyone knew whether the hair caught in the knot attached to the broken paintbrush was pulled out by the roots, or did the coroner have to cut the hair in order to remove it. After a little closer scrutiny of the picture taken of her body lying on the floor in her home, I believe her hair to still be attached and caught up in the knot on the paintbrush, which would verify (in my mind anyway) that the device found around her neck was not functional .

Just google images of garrotes and you’ll find two types: the type that was used in formal executions in Spain for several centuries, and the type that assassins use -- the latter always having two ends that are pulled away from one another when used:

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to otg For This Useful Post:

The lower trauma is not circumferential. From the back in one of the autopsy photographs, there is no lower furrow! This is what led me to suspect years ago that there had been a prior strangulation and that the garrote was staging?

Or... perhaps the back part of the two circumferences is confluent.

Or... perhaps there was no pressure from the cord in the back (as in the unseen “Y” formed in hanging deaths).

I believe the whitish line below the deep furrow to be the one that actually strangled her, and that after death the cord was moved higher around the neck to mislead investigators as to the manner of death. And it worked. Even with the evidence of the first strangulation right there on her neck, it worked. The deep furrow was caused (I believe) mostly from postmortem swelling, and the lower whitish circumference didn’t have the ligature in position long enough to cause a furrow -- only the blanching..

The Following User Says Thank You to otg For This Useful Post:

I do recall that. I also recall Patsy saying that BR was always "trying to make a boat or something" (her words) with a rope.

This family knew about ropes and knots. They were sailors and BR was a scout and JR was in the Navy.

I think too much is made of this sailor stuff. For two reasons;

One, and most important, there was nothing very sophisticated about the garrotte. In fact the windings around the paint brush handle are more skillful than the knot at JBR's neck.

Second, I served in the navy and I can only make a few basic knots. That's all I ever need. People who sail boats need to know some knots, but one doesn't have to be a sailor to know how to tie a simple slip knot.

Actually there is a third reason, and it's this - why would the Rs want to show off their knot tying skills under these circumstances. Isn't it better not to have the knots linked with their "special skills" ?

I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Chrishope For This Useful Post:

Please, please, please. The “handle” that was attached to one of the tailpieces of the ligature that was found on JonBenet’s neck was never twisted to tighten it. It was dysfunctional in that respect, and probably impossible to do because of the hair that was caught up in the knot. Her hair was shorter than the length of cord between the ligature and the “handle”, so neither was it pulled to tighten the ligature. The simple logistics of how this would work makes impossible to be anything other than something that was added on to a lifeless body as nothing more than staging.

I had wondered before (and even asked on this forum) if anyone knew whether the hair caught in the knot attached to the broken paintbrush was pulled out by the roots, or did the coroner have to cut the hair in order to remove it. After a little closer scrutiny of the picture taken of her body lying on the floor in her home, I believe her hair to still be attached and caught up in the knot on the paintbrush, which would verify (in my mind anyway) that the device found around her neck was not functional .

Just google images of garrotes and you’ll find two types: the type that was used in formal executions in Spain for several centuries, and the type that assassins use -- the latter always having two ends that are pulled away from one another when used:

The Following User Says Thank You to Chrishope For This Useful Post:

Once again- Mayer reached NO conclusion about what may have caused the bleeding he simply wrote what he found. Stating that she had been wiped by a cloth, to me, is an observation, not a conclusion. We still have nothing in writing from the coroner about how these injuries (and the resulting bleeding) were caused. But if it makes you feel better, call it a "conclusion". To me, a conclusion is the "end"- a final statement. The final part of this observation is missing- as there is nothing that indicated the cause.

For the record, I prefer Mayer's WRITTEN observations over those spoken to those present at the autopsy. I think most people would agree.

I doubt Mayer would agree, under oath or not, that JB was wearing the size 12 panties before she was wiped down. There would have been more blood on them, and the blood on the panties would be in a different location. This he has already said- that the blood drops do not match the area on her body where she had been wiped down. I simply cannot spin it any other way and simply cannot see how there is anything that indicates she was wearing them before she was wiped down.
Here is my timeline:
1. assault causing bleeding occurs
2. bleeding necessitated wiping
3. panties needed replacing.
4. replacement panties found in basement, wrapped up in a gift box, possibly with other items.
5. size 12 panties put on JB.

DeeDee249,
The subject of my post was the wiping down timeline not the cause of the bleeding. If you post a topic on it, we can discuss this further.

Thats fine, how do you know where in the sequence of events the size-12's were placed onto JonBenet?

There is absolutely nothing to prevent the size-12's being applied upstairs, as part of a prior staging, which would encompass the entirety of your timeline, making it consistent with nearly all the forensic evidence, then you could apply your postmortem release, then discovered in the basement, yielding another wipe down, one observed by Coroner Meyer?

Or... perhaps there was no pressure from the cord in the back (as in the unseen “Y” formed in hanging deaths).

I believe the whitish line below the deep furrow to be the one that actually strangled her, and that after death the cord was moved higher around the neck to mislead investigators as to the manner of death. And it worked. Even with the evidence of the first strangulation right there on her neck, it worked. The deep furrow was caused (I believe) mostly from postmortem swelling, and the lower whitish circumference didn’t have the ligature in position long enough to cause a furrow -- only the blanching..

otg,

Or... perhaps the back part of the two circumferences is confluent.

Good point, is this distinct from the lower trauma simply being the origin of the garrote, which under pressure moves upwards, thus yielding the circumferential furrow?

Or... perhaps there was no pressure from the cord in the back (as in the unseen “Y” formed in hanging deaths).

Yes, again good point, does lack of the distinct v-shape indicate it was definitely not a hanging, or could it indicate manual ligature constriction from above, e.g. with JonBenet kneeling or lying on her back?

I believe the whitish line below the deep furrow to be the one that actually strangled her, and that after death the cord was moved higher around the neck to mislead investigators as to the manner of death. And it worked. Even with the evidence of the first strangulation right there on her neck, it worked. The deep furrow was caused (I believe) mostly from postmortem swelling, and the lower whitish circumference didn’t have the ligature in position long enough to cause a furrow -- only the blanching.

More input is required on this topic, since it is quite detailed. Some might claim the lower trauma represents a failed first attempt at using the garrote? Although I am sympathetic towards your view, since I regard the garrote as staging, it was not required to kill JonBenet, by all accounts she was already comatose, a pillow would have been sufficient?

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:

There are a lot of photos of strangulation victims at FFJ in the autopsy section, as well as at CrimeShots. You can see how a ligature rolls up the neck, as well as how the V shaped bruise on the neck happened during that process.

Bruising on the neck clearly proves the cord rolled up the neck, IMO, and rested in the location where it was found at autopsy. It wasn't applied post mortem; the bruises prove that, I believe.

I'm not saying the child was hanged. When I use the term "noose" I simply mean the circle of cord around her neck, tied on her with a slip knot which, when pulled, tightened that noose and strangled her.

Remember she was laying on her stomach at that point. So the force used to pull on the handle on the cord would have pulled the body up, as well. I've speculated that the bruise on her upper back/shoulder blade on the right was from being held down as the cord was being pulled tighter. I may be wrong, of course, but things don't just lay there when you pull on them unless they're bolted down or something.

I've very confused as to why the term "twist" keeps being used in relation to the cord around the neck. If you don't believe the cord was tightened by the pulling of the broken paintbrush tied onto the end, okay. I still don't understand the use of the word "twist," though; there is nothing logical I can see in "twisting" a long, limp piece of cord in relation to this ligature around the neck. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what y'all mean by "twist."

I've also never seen any evidence the hair tied into the paintbrush handle was still attached to the child's scalp. As I remember it, Thomas said the hair tied into the knot at the neck was still attached to the scalp, but I have no recollection of anyone every claiming that was also true of the hair tied into the paintbrush handle. Maybe I'm simply confused, but I've never seen this in many years of reading and discussions...or at least, I don't remember it. Anyone have a source for that info?

I've missed noticing any photo where one can see hair tied into the paintbrush knot and attached to the scalp of the child, but I'd like to see that. Perhaps you can post the link to that? And thanks in advance.

The Following User Says Thank You to KoldKase For This Useful Post:

There are a lot of photos of strangulation victims at FFJ in the autopsy section, as well as at CrimeShots. You can see how a ligature rolls up the neck, as well as how the V shaped bruise on the neck happened during that process.

Bruising on the neck clearly proves the cord rolled up the neck, IMO, and rested in the location where it was found at autopsy. It wasn't applied post mortem; the bruises prove that, I believe.

I'm not saying the child was hanged. When I use the term "noose" I simply mean the circle of cord around her neck, tied on her with a slip knot which, when pulled, tightened that noose and strangled her.

Remember she was laying on her stomach at that point. So the force used to pull on the handle on the cord would have pulled the body up, as well. I've speculated that the bruise on her upper back/shoulder blade on the right was from being held down as the cord was being pulled tighter. I may be wrong, of course, but things don't just lay there when you pull on them unless they're bolted down or something.

I've very confused as to why the term "twist" keeps being used in relation to the cord around the neck. If you don't believe the cord was tightened by the pulling of the broken paintbrush tied onto the end, okay. I still don't understand the use of the word "twist," though; there is nothing logical I can see in "twisting" a long, limp piece of cord in relation to this ligature around the neck. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what y'all mean by "twist."

I've also never seen any evidence the hair tied into the paintbrush handle was still attached to the child's scalp. As I remember it, Thomas said the hair tied into the knot at the neck was still attached to the scalp, but I have no recollection of anyone every claiming that was also true of the hair tied into the paintbrush handle. Maybe I'm simply confused, but I've never seen this in many years of reading and discussions...or at least, I don't remember it. Anyone have a source for that info?

I've missed noticing any photo where one can see hair tied into the paintbrush knot and attached to the scalp of the child, but I'd like to see that. Perhaps you can post the link to that? And thanks in advance.

KoldKase,
Why was the garrote used, it was not required. A simple ligature was enough to kill JonBenet?

The Following User Says Thank You to UKGuy For This Useful Post:

KoldKase,
Why was the garrote used, it was not required. A simple ligature was enough to kill JonBenet?

Why were there two causes of killing: head blow AND strangulation, if only one would suffice?

...UKGuy, ok already -- just BECAUSE something may not have been 'needed', doesn't make it not so. It may only take someone one hard stabbing to kill someone, so why stab someone 84 times? Yet it happens...

Or... perhaps there was no pressure from the cord in the back (as in the unseen “Y” formed in hanging deaths).

I believe the whitish line below the deep furrow to be the one that actually strangled her, and that after death the cord was moved higher around the neck to mislead investigators as to the manner of death. And it worked. Even with the evidence of the first strangulation right there on her neck, it worked. The deep furrow was caused (I believe) mostly from postmortem swelling, and the lower whitish circumference didn’t have the ligature in position long enough to cause a furrow -- only the blanching..

I'm not saying I disagree, just trying to go into this in more detail.

Notice both upper and lower points of constriction show petechial hemorrhages. If she was killed by the first constriction would PHs be possible? Petechial hemorrhages are cause by differential pressure between the arteries and veins. Veins are smaller and nearer the surface so they constrict more readily under a given amount of pressure. Once she died, there would be no more pressure, at least not from the heart pumping.

So, I wonder if the ligature/garrote could cause pressure that would produce PHs? I don't know the answer, perhaps someone following this thread knows?

If PHs cannot be caused after death, then the lower constriction cannot have been fatal.

This might suggest the lower constriction was a first attempt? I can't size the marks to anyone's hands, but that might be interesting. I'm thinking the first attempt was unsuccessful because the perp was too small/weak. PR or BR?

Another question is - would postmortem swelling be sufficient to cause that kind of furrow? I don't know. If the first attempt were successful and the garrotte merely staging, then why not place the garrotte over that spot?

I'm just playing detective here. I have no idea who killed JonBenet. It's just an opinion.